24 Jul GS 2013 art 128

Posted at 16:44h in CanRC, GS 2013 by

GS 2013 Article 128 – Appeal of Burlington-Fellowship – re: Women’s Voting as Local Matter

Committee 1 presented its second draft which contained a two part response to Burlington-Fellowship. With respect to Part One, this was the result:

1.         Material:

  • 1.1.      Letter from the church at Burlington-Fellowship (8.5.24)
  • 1.2.      Letter of appeal from the church at Burlington-Fellowship re: the decision of Regional Synod East 2008, Article 10 (8.5.24)

2.         Observations:

  • 2.1.      Burlington-Fellowship (8.5.24) requests that Synod Carman 2013:
    • [1.]       Judge that Synod Burlington 2010 (Article 177) erred when it denied Burlington-Fellowship’s appeal without providing observations, considerations, nor adopting a recommendation;
    • [2.]       Judge that Synod Burlington 2010 failed to do justice to the appeal of Burlington-Fellowship in the manner in which it disposed of the appeal;
    • [3.]       Accept the re-submission of Burlington-Fellowship’s Appeal of 2010 (attached to its letter) for judgement in 2013 on the basis of Article 31 of the Church Order, unencumbered by Article 33.
  • 2.2.      Acts of Synod 2010, Article 177, shows that Synod Burlington 2010 defeated the advisory committee’s proposal. Based on that, the chairman ruled that the appeal of Burlington-Fellowship was denied. However, no observations, considerations or recommendations were given to deny the appeal of Burlington-Fellowship.

3.         Consideration:

  • 3.1.      Burlington-Fellowship had the right to appeal a decision of Regional Synod 2008 according to Article 31 of the Church Order. Synod Burlington 2010 did not declare this appeal inadmissible. By implicitly declaring it admissible, Synod Burlington 2010 had the duty to deal with the appeal and also to provide Burlington-Fellowship with the grounds for denying the appeal. A ruling of the chairman that by defeating a proposal from an advisory committee the appeal is denied is not sufficient.

4.         Recommendations:

That Synod decide:

  • 4.1.      That Burlington Synod 2010 (Article 177) erred when it denied Burlington-Fellowship’s appeal without providing observations, considerations, nor adopting a recommendation;
  • 4.2.      That Synod Burlington 2010 failed to do justice to the appeal of Burlington-Fellowship;
  • 4.3.      To declare the resubmission of Burlington-Fellowship’s appeal against Article 10 in the Acts of Regional Synod East 2008 admissible.

ADOPTED

with Br. L. Kampen abstaining (as per Article 32 CO)

With respect to Part Two, with a few minor changes, this was the result:

1.         Observations:

  • 1.1.      Burlington-Fellowship appeals the decision of Regional Synod East 2008, Article 10: “Broader assemblies have determined that the issue of women’s voting is a matter of the churches in common and a number of General Synods have admitted the issue to their agendas, evidencing the same.”
  • 1.2.      Burlington-Fellowship states that this is insufficient ground from which “to conclude that the churches have arrogated to its Synods the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate something left by the Church Order for local regulation.”
  • 1.3.      Burlington-Fellowship appeals to General Synod to judge that:
    • [1.]       Regional Synod East 2008, Article 10.1.C is not a valid ground;
    • [2.]       Article 3 of the Church Order allows local congregations to regulate eligibility standards for participation in election for office bearers;
    • [3.]       Therefore Regional Synod East 2008 erred in its decision to deny Fellowship’s appeal.

2.         Considerations:

  • 2.1.      Burlington-Fellowship contests one of the four grounds of Regional Synod East 2008. This particular ground appears to be foundational to the decision of Regional Synod East as it is referred to on several occasions in this decision.
  • 2.2.      Regional Synod 2008 used a Consideration from Classis Central Ontario, June 13, 2008, referring to the Acts of General Synods 1974, 1977, 1986, 1995, 1998, 2001 and 2007 in order to prove that “broader assemblies have determined that the issue of women’s voting is a matter of the churches in common.”
  • 2.3.      The above list of general synods does not include the decision of Synod Smithville 1980 which defeated a motion “to leave the matter of Women’s Voting Rights in the freedom of the churches.” The third ground of that defeated motion is as follows: “Article 22, Church Order [Edition 1968] leaves room to the local churches to act according to local regulations, in accordance with what has been agreed upon by the churches re: the matter of voting in Article 22 of the Church Order” (Art 80).
  • 2.4.      Synod Carman 2013 notes that the church of Burlington-Fellowship has never appealed the decisions of synods which declared the matter to be a matter for the churches in common. Burlington-Fellowship recognized the federative nature of the women voting matter when it endorsed the overture of sr. C. VanEerden to Synod Abbottsford 1995 who included as one of her grounds, “Women’s voting is a matter which belongs to the churches in common.”
  • 2.5.      Burlington-Fellowship incorrectly reasons that everything that is not in the Church Order should be left for local regulation. In other instances, synods have made binding decisions about matters which are not regulated in the Church Order.

3.         Recommendations:

That Synod decide:

  • 3.1.      That Regional Synod East 2008 was correct in stating that “broader assemblies have determined that the issue of women’s voting is a matter of the churches in common…”;
  • 3.2.      To deny the appeal of Burlington-Fellowship.

ADOPTED

with Br. L. Kampen abstaining (as per Article 32 CO)

Print page